What could come after a rules-based world order?

A war without clear justification. A president who threatens: "A whole civilization will die tonight." For many, the recent war between the US, Israel and Iran marks a further deterioration in international relations. "We're really at a low point in a rules-based order," Stacie Goddard, professor of political science at Wellesley College in the US, told DW.

The rules-based order is generally defined as a set of norms and institutions established after World War II and took on new significance when the Cold War ended. "It is an order that is based on a number of rules, oftentimes defined as liberal rules, that are designed to create patterns and regulate international relations," Goddard said. "The idea is to create a system that really constrained states and how they could behave towards each other." 

Objectives and downfalls

After the horrors of two world wars in the 20th century, the objective was to help create a more stable, free and prosperous world. International institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization were founded; member states agreed to abstain from acts of aggression on other members and on the right to self-defense in response to attack.

"There's no doubt, at least in my mind, that the aspirations of the liberal order and the rules-based order were universal. But obviously, it never operates like that in reality. It's exclusive. It's hierarchical. The actions of many of its supporters, the US included, are hypocritical, taking advantage of the rules to the detriment of others," Goddard said.

Countries that belong to the Global South have felt for a long time that the guardrails built by the West to protect the rules-based order never really benefited them in any meaningful way. 

"It was a very selective club. It mainly benefited the United States and its Western allies," Amitav Acharya, a professor at the school of international service at the American University in Washington and author of the book "he Once and Future World Order," told DW. He says there is a long-standing perception in the countries of the Global South that "the rules are rigged against them. They did benefit to some extent, but they never really had agency. They never really got the place under the sun, so to speak."

One example often cited is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which African leaders and human rights lawyers often accuse of disproportionately targeting leaders from their continent. A 2024 Amnesty International report points out that of the 54 individuals indicted by the ICC to date, 47 are African.

Erosion of the rules-based order

The recent decade has seen further erosion of confidence in the rules-based order. As just one example, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 challenged the principle of sovereignty. 

So if the age of a rules-based order is coming to an end, what could be next?

Scenario 1: Hemispheric dominance

A scenario many geopolitical scholars discuss is the revival of hemispheric dominance. Some of US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been called the "Donroe Doctrine," along the lines of the 19th-century "Monroe Doctrine," which sought to weaken European influence in the Western Hemisphere. 

Today, when Trump refers to to this doctrine, he seems to mean US dominance in the region. The ousting of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and US threats toward Greenland are cases in point.

Superpowers dividing the world into hemispheric influence could mean that China tightens its grip on South Asia, with implications for Taiwan and Russia has free rein in eastern Europe. Outcomes like these are the darkest versions of the hemispheric dominance scenario. But the scenario is also one of the less likely. 

In Goddard’s view, "that one is in for a hell of a lot of blowbacks from the sovereign states who don't quite understand why they've been placed into the sphere of influence [...] at what point did somebody decide that Japan was part of China's sphere of influence, for example, or South Korea for that matter?"

Plus, for Goddard, actors such as Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump do not necessarily act in the interest of their respective nations, which would be central to a hemispheric concept. "They're looking to make themselves and their loyalists great in this international system, which is why we see a lot of really puzzling behavior in international politics," Goddard said.

She and colleagues at Georgetown University coined the term "neo-royalism" to describe a departure from the rules-based order towards elite clusters of power not unlike historical monarchical systems, in which small cliques shape international politics to their own and their loyalists' benefit. 

Scenario 2: Multiplex instead of hegemonic

The stark alternative to this scenario is a multipolar, or rather, as Acharya puts it, a multiplex world order. "In a multiplex order, you don't have one or two or a handful of a few great powers. In a multiplex order, you have a lot more going on. There are middle powers; there are regional powers; there are non-state actors, civil society."

Cooperation will take place at a global level, as with the UN, and on a regional level. It is not just about the distribution of power but also about sharing ideas and know-how and adopting shared norms.

In this scenario, a lot comes down to the so-called middle powers, to which some analysts argue that the EU belongs. Or in the words of Acharya, "there will be Indonesia in Southeast Asia, there will be South Africa in Africa. So I see a world of a variety of actors at the global, but also at the regional, level."

But a multiplex order, according to Acharya, would not be perfect. He believes that there would still be conflict and instability, but less tied to hegemonic powers.

Scenario 3: Total collapse?

Last, there is the scenario that chaos and anarchy will replace the rules-based world order. A world on the brink of another global war. Acharya says that such a scenario is feared by many but not likely at the moment. Goddard also argues that people know the price of an age characterized by multiple intercontinental wars too well to want to pay it again.

She too expects middle powers to play a crucial role. "What happens with the rules-based order depends on what happens with those who still feel it is valuable and who have some power to make things happen. To the extent they're actually willing to push back against these other elements, even if pushing back is costly."

So, will the EU and countries like Japan, South Korea, and India make their own trade agreements, become more militarily independent of the US and, at the same time, honor rules-based principles?

This may be the decisive factor in the emergence of a new world order, one not exclusively designed by Western powers.

Edited by: Chris Robinson, Don Mac Coitir